Section 100

Indian criminal law recognises that people cannot always wait for police protection, so it allows reasonable self-defence. But unrestricted self-defence could be misused to justify killing over minor provocations. The drafters of the IPC (1860), influenced by English common law principles on self-defence, created a graded system: Section 96-99 set the general boundaries and restrictions, while Section 100 specifically identifies the grave situations (like attacks threatening death, rape, kidnapping, etc.) where lethal defence is justified. This section acts as the introductory clause connecting the restrictions of Section 99 to the specific list of serious offences that follows.

Indian courts have consistently held that Section 100 cannot be read in isolation from Section 99 — the right to cause death is not absolute even when one of the listed serious offences is happening; the force used must still be proportionate and necessary, and the defender must not have had a safe means of retreat that was practical in the circumstances. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujarat and Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, has emphasized that courts must look at the totality of circumstances — the nature of the assault, the imminence of danger, and whether the accused honestly believed their life was in danger — rather than mechanically checking whether the situation fits one of the listed categories.

• Myth: Section 100 gives unlimited right to kill anyone who attacks you.
  Fact: The right only applies to specific serious situations listed after this clause, and only within the limits set by Section 99, such as using no more force than necessary.
• Myth: You can claim Section 100 after any physical fight that turns fatal.
  Fact: Courts examine whether the attack genuinely fell into one of the serious categories listed (like attacks threatening death or grievous hurt) and whether the response was proportionate, not just whether a fight occurred.